We get what we deserve.

[bazoukas]

What keeps amazing me, is the BIG emphasis on eye candy instead of things working right of the box.
Do not get me wrong, eye candy is good but wen it becomes the MAIN focus on liking or not liking an OS or a distro, I think it is very moronic.
When users are ready to dismiss something because it does not have the bloat that they want to have, instead of focusing on what is important.


MACS. They have so much eye candy that they put the C into candy. Thing with them though, is that they can make something look good AND work good under the hood.

Windows. We all know the story.

Linux users, mainly those who come from windows and consider themselves as geeks: "Oh the desktop is not much to look at" when running something like icewm or fluxbox.
Dude, i have setup it up to play dvds, plugins are all installed, it can run as a part of a cluster and bla bla.....

"uh its not much to look at".

In the meantime my roomates, that just know how to write word documents on the computer say something like "Who gives a f*** how it looks. I want to do my thing and not get any viruses and that's it."



My conclusion? In general people ask for the superficial. Not only when it comes to OS but just in general

[DSwain]

I have to say I agree with this, or at least the beginning. Personally, I like a distro that's working at the distro, and not something else. I think it's very cool when they become radical and decide to develop a whole new concept of a GUI and have an either good working base or make a good one along with it, but the base needs to be strong. Personally I enjoy distros that bring an unbias feeling towards them. An example may be the one I use now, and have for quite a while; Arch. You run through the installation, and gives you some options, but it doesn't force you to run a certain GUI, let alone one at all. I think it's nice to allow the user to create the decision.

I also agree, because what's to stop you from getting something working and/or that works and then giving it a pretty face? It's not that hard really and would be more worthwhile. You make a fair argument.

[angustia]

Originally posted by bazoukas


Dude, i have setup it up to play dvds, plugins are all installed, it can run as a part of a cluster and bla bla.....
.....
My conclusion? In general people ask for the superficial. Not only when it comes to OS but just in general

think about this: one day your toillet gets blocked as every monday morning, and you give a s***t about it and call the usual plumber to fix it (and you know that you'll have to call him again next week). And your cousin tells you about a kind of toillet that works for ever, can be adapted to any ***, and you can get for free, but only your cousin knows how to install it, and it doesn't work like other toillets, you have to change you habits...

now change toillet for every single thing that you don't mind

[Hmse]

Originally posted by angustia
think about this: one day your toillet gets blocked as every monday morning, and you give a s***t about it and call the usual plumber to fix it (and you know that you'll have to call him again next week). And your cousin tells you about a kind of toillet that works for ever, can be adapted to any ***, and you can get for free, but only your cousin knows how to install it, and it doesn't work like other toillets, you have to change you habits...

now change toillet for every single thing that you don't mind
Lol! That was a weird analogy:p But pretty accurate.

[janet loves bill]

"uh its not much to look at".
people who ONLY care about eye-candy are retards who should not use Linux in the first place!


I want to do my thing and not get any viruses and that's it."
This is the Important thing, Security!
Linux just works, and Whinedows just Crashes--:)

[pezplaya]

Get your system to work properly first aside from how it looks. Second, make it look good (if u want).

[Parcival]

Eye candy is needed because it emotionally attaches us to our products. As Don Norman puts it, once a technology has matured to a certain stage, design becomes the number one selling argument.

[Huggy]

I like the way Linux (xwindows) looks... I think I look a lot better the MS.

I like that analogy with the toilet but at the same time it makes life a little difficult if all your software / file are only compatible with your ‘old toilet’ and your work uses the same ‘crap’ as your ‘old toilet’. other then that I think more people would switch.

[Daedrus]

Originally posted by bazoukas
When users are ready to dismiss something because it does not have the bloat that they want to have, instead of focusing on what is important.


Two things many Windows user never think about: Bloat and what is important. If they did they would look away from Windows. What do you get with a base install of Windows? 3GB used on your drive that you can browse the internet and get email with the most insecure products available. Talk about bloat. If you use that much space up with a Linux install, at least you would have install many functional programs for things other than just browsing and system maintenance.

[GmarAppledude]

X86 PCs were developed to be modular you can build exactly what you want (price may be an issue here). Linux is the same (with out the price issues).

I personally think that Linux looks fantastic I mean its highly configurable, we can make it look how we want it to look thats the whole point (of PCs) right. From text only utility servers to glossy media centres; the skys the limit. Something for everyone. If we choose to stick with the defaults thats great, want a bit more speed, with a bit of knowledge and effort thats achievable too with all the WMs and DEs. Fancy glossy transparent window borders, just install them there are loads to choose from. The skys the limit, you can't beat that.

[Huggy]

I think the one thing to keep in mind which people seem to lose track of.
Is that unless your "In To" computer you really don't Know/Care what OS you use, nor what OS is better then the next.
Linux doesn't get alot of air time and for what air time it does get, it gears more towards the business end ($$as well it should$$)
For the avg user.
-As long as they have Internet (working well or not)
-Access to email (again working well or not)
-Able to type, homework / Doc (without worry of compatibility)
They are happy.

So unless people start getting more computer smart, things are going to stay they way they are, I would think.

[Parcival]

Originally posted by Huggy
Linux doesn't get alot of air time and for what air time it does get, it gears more towards the business end

I guess I don't quite agree on this one. MS got so strong because people got to know computers running MS software at work, so they bought them for their homes, too. I think one shouldn't underestimate the role of business computing as a gatekeeper for home computing.

[2ndsign]

i have a business deal with a local business

im a developer for several distros

my deal with them is i have a displayed computer running minislack(slackware based) opengl enabled on an amd 2400 semrpon and at least once a month someone pays me 200$ to install it on their own system and the establishment takes their cut .the desktop is a beautiful e17 custom desktop i built.
not only are the comstumers paying me but 2 of the 5 techs are now taking linux lessions.
ohh and i offer 30 day support

there amazed by how much faster it is then windows .ive installed 11 installs so far and everyone is happy with their box. you see we just gotta get linux out there!!

[Huggy]

you see we just gotta get linux out there!!

True... but also. If I was to go Future Shop / Best Buy or a general computer store and ask what they had for new computer they would try to sell me on the newist and best system / parts and not one word would be said about Linux of any distro and if I ask the sells person on the floor I would fully expect a :confused: look. I would think that now a days most "home use" computer buyers would end up a place like Future Shop / Best buy sort of deal.

so unless Linux gets some air time aimed at the home user as well gets into some highschools Linux will be #2 (it IS the best and should be #1 but lets face it, it is #2)
I also agree with Parcival
business computing as a gatekeeper for home computing
So Unless people can figure out a Seamless and Cost Effective way to convert a 'any size Business / Corporation / Chain' MS is going to be the
predominate OS out there. I think :(

[Icarus]

Originally posted by 2ndsign
there amazed by how much faster it is then windows .ive installed 11 installs so far and everyone is happy with their box. you see we just gotta get linux out there!! Plus Linux doesn't suffer from "OS Decay" so you can use the same install for a couple years and it will run just as well as it did on the install day ;)

[JSimmons]

Originally posted by janet loves bill
people who ONLY care about eye-candy are retards who should not use Linux in the first place!

This is the Important thing, Security!
Linux just works, and Whinedows just Crashes--:)

We all have fun bashing Windows, but mindless ranting just to be cool like everyone else is more than just absurd. Get over it already. Windows can have just as long of an uptime as Linux if it's configured correctly and maintained prudently. The really ironic part of that statement is that it's also true for the great and mighty Linux. I have several Windows and Linux boxes, and NONE of them crash.

If you bork up the install or use root for your day-to-day existance, you're just as vulnerable as any other machine out there, and just as stupid as the "typical" Windows user.

As to the real topic of this message, I like eye-candy, and I'm certainly not a "retard". I simply have better things to do with my computing time than to dick around with the command line.

[JSimmons]

Originally posted by Icarus
Plus Linux doesn't suffer from "OS Decay" so you can use the same install for a couple years and it will run just as well as it did on the install day ;)

That statement falls neatly under the category of an urban legend - I recently built a new system that had been running the same install of Windows 2000 for over 2-1/2 years. It was running just as well as it did when I first installed it. I've never run XP, but since XP is nothing more than Win2K with lame attempts at DRM and a school-girl interface, I suspect it's "decay" is simlar to Win2k - non-existant in the hands of a moderately aware user.

Caveat: That statement was true about Win95, and even Win98, but not nearly so much for Win98.

[JSimmons]

Originally posted by Parcival
I guess I don't quite agree on this one. MS got so strong because people got to know computers running MS software at work, so they bought them for their homes, too. I think one shouldn't underestimate the role of business computing as a gatekeeper for home computing.

Also, the idea behind Windows is a reasonably consistent interface. With few exceptions, evry Windows program has a standard selection of menu options (their core business logic requirements notwithstanding). Familiarity was bred in the office and fostered at home - Windows succeded. Linux is going to have to do the same thing to succeed in the home market (where eye-candy is certainly an important factor).

Your typical home user (and even your typical office worker) just wants it to work. They don't care about commandlines, kernel compiles, or application dependencies. They want to download a program, install it, and then start using it.

For office workers, they don't want to have to wait for the IT department to come up and fix something. They just want their terminals to allow them to do their job in a timely manner.

Linux is almost there, but not quite. Their biggest battle is with people who run Windows games that don't want to futz around with Wine, Transgaming, or even dual-booting.

My dad's wife does absolutely nothing but email, web, Excel, Word, and a few simple games on MSN. If there is just one of those things she won't be able to do painlessly on Linux, she won't switch. Welcome to the real world of your "typical" Windows user.

[Icarus]

Originally posted by JSimmons
Caveat: That statement was true about Win95, and even Win98, but not nearly so much for Win98. I meant to add that, it's mostly been fixed since 2000 :o

A lot of current slow down problems are not due to bad OS design (exactly) but spyware and adware can take a new system down to a crawl very quickly

Urban Legends are not always false when there is some truth to them ;)

Windows has made a lot of progress in stability and most of the BOSDs people see these days are because of bad drivers (which the user doesn't know the first place to look to fix) or incorrectly installed or poorly written software (not MS software, but from the amature coder that got his VS+++++.NET software from kazaa ;))